List groups

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks the operation as read-only. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: the response includes per-group user counts, and isSystem groups are built-in permanent groups. This is meaningful context and does not contradict the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, and the second adds an important caveat about system groups. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description covers the main output and an important caveat. However, there is no output schema and no parameter documentation, so an agent cannot determine filter semantics, default ordering, or the exact shape of the returned group data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain filter or order_by at all. The enum values for order_by are somewhat self-explanatory, but filter's meaning and any defaults are left completely unspecified, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Lists'), the resource ('the wiki's groups'), and the specific output detail (how many users each group has). It also names the system groups and their special status, which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_users and delete_group.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives useful context by warning that isSystem groups are permanent and should not be deleted, which implies when the result matters for deletion decisions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_group or list_users.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.